Talk:Gerontology Research Group

This article was nominated for deletion on 2007 November 13. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Longevity Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Longevity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the World's oldest people on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LongevityWikipedia:WikiProject LongevityTemplate:WikiProject LongevityLongevity articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Organizations

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Archives

no archives yet (create)

This page has archives. Sections older than 300 days may be automatically archived by .

This article is stunted, POV, even silly edit

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Gerontology Research Group is more than just a group of researchers who meet at UCLA. The idea that one must be somewhere in person is antiquated. In this age of telecommunication, tele-working, videoconferencing, e-mail, and a 24-hour, 7-day a week information economy, to suggest that only those who meet in person, and not those on the group discussion e-mail list, should not count is just plain hypocritical. After all, what would Wikipedia be if only those Wikipedes who meet with the Wikimedia Foundation in person were considered part of the Wikipedia editing team?Ryoung122 08:53, 24 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

contradictions edit

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I flagged the last statement claiming "as of aug 20, 2015", where the supporting ref is from April 2015. also the list of the verified oldest people has >48 entries. if this list is different from teh gerontology group this should be made clear in the article. --Wuerzele (talk) 02:34, 31 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

I resolved the contradiction by re-acessing the reference, updating the ref date and accessdate, and updating the number being tracked. The number at the list of verified oldest people need not be the same as the number here. Ca2james (talk) 06:21, 31 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Add topic